Posted
by
timothy
on Thursday May 20, 2010 @03:47PM
from the you-like-dexter-and-barney dept.

MojoKid writes "Google's own I/O conference in California is wrapping up today, but not before the company goes out with a serious bang. Google just announced something that has been rumored for a while now: Google TV. Basically, Google is taking the Apple TV concept, but going way overboard by introducing apps, screen customization, and channel searching. Following Google's own announcement, Intel stepped in to provide some backbone to the story. Google is obviously using the big players to move Google TV forward, with Intel, DISH Network, Best Buy, and Adobe firmly on board. Google TV itself is based on Android, runs the Google Chrome browser, and will allow users to access all of their usual TV channels as well as a world of Internet and cloud-based information and applications, including Adobe Flash-based content."

Probably 90% of people on Slashdot have a computer hooked up to their TV, one way or another. But more mainstream options are still limited to things like AppleTV. Hopefully this Google offering helps make the usability level low enough that the technologically challenges masses will start to get some of the same benefits. Maybe it will hurt the entrenched content providers enough and provide enough of a market that we will be able to purchase shows ala carte at reasonable prices over the internet; without all the middle men taking our money.

Well, googletv is able to do more things than what I do with my computer hooked up to my TV. You can google for tv shows, choose the best choice, press a button, and googletv will sintonize the channel automatically (or show a GUI to record the show in the future). Goodbye, channel numbers! I don't know if there're other "media centers" that can do this, but it looked pretty amazing to me.

Well, googletv is able to do more things than what I do with my computer hooked up to my TV.

Really?

You can google for tv shows, choose the best choice, press a button, and googletv will sintonize the channel automatically (or show a GUI to record the show in the future).

I don't know what "sintonize" means. Are you reverting to a native tongue? Anyway, guessing by the context, there are a number of applications for computers that do exactly that sort of thing, especially if you're using your computer with a tuner card.

Goodbye, channel numbers!

I said "goodbye" to both channel numbers and channel names many years ago. My computer has long recommended TV programs and others I searched for or just added to my regular rotation. Who knows when something is on, or what channel and who cares? Althou

there are a number of applications for computers that do exactly that sort of thing, especially if you're using your computer with a tuner card.

But only for over the air. If you try to tune in any digital channels from some cable or satellite providers, you might find that only over-the-air channels are clear QAM, and only over-the-air channels are free of 5C encryption on the FireWire output. Or to put it another way: "Comcast's action prevented me from
living where I wanted to live." [threebit.net]

What does this do that a WIndows 7 HTPC doesn't, though?
If you're talking about ease of use, the only thing I have to do on my win7 box is press a button on my remote and Windows Media Center pops up.
Yes, I had to buy a WMC-friendly remote that came with a USB receiver. I still don't think this is hard.
In fact, the only thing that's "hard" about my setup is that most people don't know you can even do that. They don't know that you can hook a computer to a TV, they don't know WMC exists, and they don't

In fact, the only thing that's "hard" about my setup is that most people don't know you can even do that. They don't know that you can hook a computer to a TV, they don't know WMC exists, and they don't know that you can get a remote for the computer.

Well not knowing you can do it, not having an extra computer, not knowing where to buy a cheap computer that can hook up to the TV, not knowing how to configure the computer to display on the TV, etc. If you know what you're doing and are a geek, of course you integrate your computer and TV. For everyone else there needs to be a plug and play pre-configured system for them, like what Google is offering.

Is get it on Blu-ray players. That is the way thing seems to be going for the mass market now. It is uncommon to see a Blu-ray player without a net connection since they need firmware updates for retarded copy protection reasons and BD-Live needs net access. Well, the companies figured out that since their players can decode video and get on the net, they could also play video from the net. You can get Netflix, Vudu and such right to your Blu-ray player.

Probably 90% of people on Slashdot have a computer hooked up to their TV, one way or another. But more mainstream options are still limited to things like AppleTV. Hopefully this Google offering helps make the usability level low enough that the technologically challenges masses will start to get some of the same benefits. Maybe it will hurt the entrenched content providers enough and provide enough of a market that we will be able to purchase shows ala carte at reasonable prices over the internet; without all the middle men taking content providers' money.

Ultimately the problems with hooking up a computer to the TV isn't as much about the technology or usability, it's about the content. Most of the big electronics companies just won't invest in building sleek set-top boxes because they need a content feed, and there are only a few options: Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, and iTunes.

All of those services have limited content, and Hulu actively tries to prevent set-top-box support because they don't really want you watching Internet content on your TV. Hulu is owned by the TV networks, and neither the TV networks nor the Cable companies particularly like the idea of shows being distributed via the Internet rather than broadcast networks.

If content owners allowed their shows to be streamed in an open video format via an open protocol, you would see a gold rush of manufacturers building TVs and set-top boxes that supported that format and protocol. Aside from building fast enough Internet access and having big enough datacenters to serve all that video (or using a bittorrent-like P2P technology to handle the bandwidth on the server end), providing TV and movies over the Internet is not a technological problem at all.

It comes down to this: The powerful people and businesses in TV and movies are invested in TV networks and cable companies. Though they may provide some services online, they'll try to make sure they're substandard and crippled in order to make sure you keep paying your cable bill.

In the given context he pretty clearly means "general purpose computer" versus a special purpose device. Of course, who am I to argue with geeks and our need to be right about *something* regardless how little anybody else cares. Obviously I cared enough to respond...:P

To me the "one way or another" implied he was specifically including DVRs, both home made and vendor-bought. It wasn't that clear at all.

And 90% is certainly wrong if he meant general-purpose computers. My laptop has been hooked up to my TV exactly twice in 7 years. Why would I bother when my Dish DVR grabs most everything I want to watch?

Define "a computer." Most DVRs contain pretty much all the components of a modern day computer... even those distributed by Cox or Comcast.

Computer - Noun: Not an abacus or a calculator or Data from Star Trek. A PC type device that allows normal people to surf the Web as well as some other generic functions. Not an appliance specifically locked down by your cable company to make sure you can't use any other devices with it or do anything really useful they don't approve of.

The consensus in recent articles about iPad and Splashtop is that one way to tell the difference between a "computer" and an "appliance" is that a computer can run a compiler. This includes desktops, laptops, and servers but excludes an iPad and a cable box.

Most DVRs contain pretty much all the components of a modern day computer

Until I get better internet service, it is a moot point. I don't see AT&T or Comcast (Xfinity) helping Google here.

I do look forward to Google (or someone) getting fiber into my city, and to my door. Yeah, Comcast has fiber running right under my driveway, but getting it that extra 90 ft seems impossible right now.

But what will the TV Networks and Cable Providers do about it? Cell phone companies have slaughtered Android and TV networks/cable providers think that even though you are -paying- for TV you still need to be shown tons and tons of ads. So the question remains whether this will remain untouched or if it will be corrupted like Android has been by the TV networks and cable providers?

In a lot of ways, while Verizon (oddly enough) has been pretty outgoing in embracing Android and not screwing with its customer's devices, AT&T doesn't let you install non-market apps, adds your phone with unusable bloatware that isn't removable, changes the default search engine to Yahoo! and generally takes out any open-ness of Android (see http://www.pcworld.com/article/191036/motorola_backflip_on_atandt_not_the_full_android_experience.html [pcworld.com] and note that AT&T has been heavily promoting the Backfl

Buying a phone from AT&T is going to be just like that. They can't have any phone outshining their iPhone can they?

There are some phones that also do not allow unsigned roms, my advice is simply not to buy one of those phones. For this simple reason if I was in europe I would not buy the milestone, same phone as droid but requires signed boot images.

Well yes, but it still stands of an example of networks screwing up Android. The entire point of Android was to unleash the power that was in a cell phone without being tied to expensive and stupid software. Carriers have consistently tried to remove the entire point of Android by limiting what their phones can do.

So, let me get this right, even though I've already paid a large sum of money (more than enough to cover the hardware and the 20 feet of cable needed to go from the sidewalk to my house), it still costs $30 a month to get the signal to my house!? I think I could run Cat 5 cable and stream things from a small server to a neighborhood for less than that and that isn't even including the economies of scale with a large cable company such as Comcast.

So, let me get this right, even though I've already paid a large sum of money (more than enough to cover the hardware and the 20 feet of cable needed to go from the sidewalk to my house), it still costs $30 a month to get the signal to my house!?

No, it costs less than $30. Comcast charges more so that they can cover their overhead (tech support, billing, advertising, marketing, business, etc) and still make a profit. Econ 101.

Also, don't forget that they charge for the convenience of having the cable already run to your house, and probably charge a flat rate whether you live in an apartment (cheap for them) or out in the sticks, and thus average the cost for their baseline.

What your television subscription gets you is tons of channels you do not want to watch and commercials on the ones you do want to watch. This is why I dropped cable and use clicker.com to find shows online to watch. If I am going to watch commercials I might as well not pay for the privilege.

The radio frequencies reserved for transmitted television and the satellites used for Sat TV can be deployed to far more useful purposes once TV's deployed off to glass fibre and DSL

That won't happen any time soon. The excuse is that deploying "glass fibre and DSL" to the farmers who grow the food you eat is so expensive that it would take a government initiative analogous to the Rural Electrification Act [wikipedia.org]. They even get their Internet over satellite.

It sounds great. However, there's no mention yet about whether it will be US-only, or if/when there will be an international rollout. I can't watch Hulu in Canada, I can't use Netflix, I can't use a cablecard, and I have to presume that, at least at first, I won't be able to use Google TV.

OK, I CAN use Hulu in Canada if I trick them into thinking I'm in the US, but that's not quite the same.

Since most of Canada have metered internet anyway, even if you had this you'd probably rack up a fortune in overages trying to actually use it. I'm sure it's only a coincidence that the major internet providers in Canada are all television providers. I feel like I'm in the internet dark ages up here.

I listened to the Google I/O keynote this morning, and i didn't really hear about any compelling features that couldn't be reproduced by a good A/V switch and a line in from my PC to the TV. They did make some crack about how previous attempts at internet TV failed as soon as they required the user to switch inputs since most of them didn't know how to get back to regular TV (certainly a rather cynical view) but i'm not sure how it will benefit anyone who's technically proficient enough to handle normal inp

I suspect the point will be efficiency and convenience, which will be true for technophobes and technophiles alike.

Think of Google search. "All" it did was make finding things more efficient--but that represented a dramatic improvement in the experience of using the web. Or Gmail--we all had email beforehand, but it provided a much better interface. (Obviously not everyone will agree that the Gmail interface is good, but my point is just that lots of people do like that interface, and thus switched to Gm

My daughter has been switching inputs on the TV since she was 7 (we've got a Wii). She's been using the DVD player built into the other TV since she was 4. It is not clear that my wife knows how to do either of these. Necessity is the mother of figuring out how stuff works.

i didn't really hear about any compelling features that couldn't be reproduced by a good A/V switch and a line in from my PC to the TV.

For one thing, SDTV output as a standard feature. A PC with a VGA, DVI, or HDMI output can connect to an HDTV, but half of households with a TV still have an SDTV in the living room. To connect a PC without a gaming video card to an SDTV, you need a scan converter [sewelldirect.com] to turn VGA into composite or S-Video.

Probably not all that different, but your position basically echoes that of so many people who said of Google's original product (t's search engine): "How is this different from Lycos/Yahoo/Excite/AltaVista?".

The answer: at it's base level, it's not different. HOWEVER, Google has a habit of taking things that have all been done before, and doing it RIGHT.

I love Java as much as the next Java zealot, but sadly the last year's merger stall with Oracle really crippled the company in so many vital ways that I have my doubts about Oracle's ability to win back the hearts and minds of Mobile/Embedded developers from the growing influence of the iPhone and Android platforms. I wish Oracle all the best in this, though I do say they've got their work cut out for them.

for over the air TV. I had to get cable at my new place because the tuners in the TV's don't pick up most broadcast over rabbit ears. My Sharp Aquos has the worst reception. EyeTV dongle the best.You never see tuner quality mentioned in the reviews.

It looks like the networks will still schedule all the shows I like at the same time on the same night, forcing me to choose which ones to ignore. Don't be stupid. Let me decide what to watch and when; then we can talk.

How about this? Schedule first-run when your generic focus groups tell you, then leave it available so real people can watch whenever we get around to it. I have better things to do than schedule my life around you.

You'd think, but DVRs have only so many inputs, requiring one to pick amongst shows that are played at the same time. You say two shows, but what about three or four? No, seriously: my interests extend beyond the big four to the more obscure networks like History, Book TV, AMC and SyFy.

Those networks that do make their shows available online do so for a limited time, making it difficult to catch up if you aren't a dedicated viewer. Many networks also go out of their way to make it difficult for anyone no

I instantly thought this was a horrible idea right here. I can't trust anything they do. After all of the Internet horror stories, stories from my relatives, and even in my own family about the terrible things that can happen when Best Buy is involved, I can't trust them with this.

Best Buy employee: This is the all new Google TV. It allows real-time web 2.0 synergy between your living room and the Internet.Me: Um... what?Employee: It's like TV but combined with the Internet with apps and stuff.Me: Awesome! How much does it cost?Employee: We sell the regular model by itself for X dollars, but that isn't certified with us.Me: Oh, it isn't?Employee: Yeah, it might not work with your TV unless you pay $150 more for our Geek Squad(tm) service. They set it up, put apps on it for you, and make sure everything works.Me: I'm a computer nerd, I can set it up myself. Thanks anyways!Employee: If you buy it without our service then you don't get [insert feature here]. You either have to use Geek Squad(tm) or buy this $100 gold-plated cable.Me: *looks at box* But the box says that I get that feature without having to buy anything.Employee: Yeah, but you need these cables to have it look decent.Me: I have some old ones at home I can use. Thank you for helping!Employee: We're out of regular Google TVs.Me:...Say what?Employee: We only have our pre-specialized models. They have everything already set up by Geek Squad(tm) so you don't have to bother.Me: I'd much rather bother.Employee: Trust me, it's horrible without our service. Are you sure?Me: *sigh* Fine, I'll buy it.Employee: Thank you for shopping at Best Buy!*I get home and set it up*Me: Okay, ready to try out my new Google TV! Wait... what's this? The box never said anything about "free trials" to all of these programs. Why is the interface so slow? Oh, it's all of these other things that came pre-installed. Of course. Why is this acting all weird? *looks in settings* These settings aren't what the defaults were in the manual! Ugh... *Google TV crashes* What the crap! Okay, screw this, I'm returning it.*goes back to best buy*Me: Excuse me, I'd like to return this obviously faulty Google TV.Employee: Did you install it?Me: Yes, how else would I know it is faulty?Employee: It seems you used unqualified cables. I'm afraid you can't return it.Me: Unqualifi- No, no, no! You can't void my ability to return this because I didn't use those $100 cables! That doesn't make sense!Employee: Rules are rules, sir. Have a nice day.

And the first of these is by getting in bed with the major cable networks and offering an ala carte subscription service. I can get the big 4 over the air. If I can stream Comedy Central, Sci Fi, Cartoon Network, and Discovery I'd gladly pay them a little of the money that I was paying for hundreds of channels I didn't care about with cable. What do you say, Google? You're the only one who has the backbone to even attempt this. I'll even buy a stupidly overpriced box to buy into it. My only concern is that they'll pack so much content into this that I'll never want to turn off my Plasma...and that would get kinda pricey.

And the first of these is by getting in bed with the major cable networks and offering an ala carte subscription service. I can get the big 4 over the air. If I can stream Comedy Central, Sci Fi, Cartoon Network, and Discovery I'd gladly pay them a little of the money that I was paying for hundreds of channels I didn't care about with cable

Ala carte channels is an obsolete idea already even though it never existed. It only made sense after digital cable but before widespread On Demand. The same reasons you reject bundling of channels can be extended to why I should reject bundling of shows into channels. If I'm streaming, the whole notion of "channel" is an artificial construct.

Look at hulu for example, you can browse by channel, but it's rare that you'd want to.

Cable co's have specific licensing with their upsteam content providers. Although what you propose is possible, it also means re-negotiating the contract's, etc.. Red tape is annoying and ultimately this has to come down to the bottom line: Does adding this service (minus the rollout costs) make me more money?

They have developed an IP-based method of communicating with the TV hardware itself. That will be open-sourced, along with the rest of it, in 2011. It combines internet media with traditional TV channels, seamlessly. I watched the stream, and it looked pretty interesting. How many adverts they can throw at you, however, remains to be seen.

They have developed an IP-based method of communicating with the TV hardware itself.

Not so fast, there... they've developed an IP-based method of communicating with special software/hardware that needs to be integrated into production TVs for us to use it, to which Sony has already committed. You'll need to buy a new TV to take advantage of it, or perhaps there will be an option to buy a set-top box.

In short, this just puts a limited functionality web browser with a custom interface in your TV. For most of us geeks, it's inferior to the setups we already have... But for my mom, for example, this would be great. With GoogleTV, she can view all the LOLcats she wants from the comfort of her living room sofa.

For most of us geeks, it's inferior to the setups we already have... But for my mom, for example, this would be great. With GoogleTV, she can view all the LOLcats she wants from the comfort of her living room sofa.

Meanwhile, Microsoft wonders why they bothered to buy WebTV [microsoft.com] in 1997 and then clearly not capitalize on it...

Note that Sony has also announced support in their BluRay players, and I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see something come out for the PS3. That expands the market significantly, in addition to the Logitech gear.

The only thing I don't get is that the gear is supposedly coming out this fall, but the development SDK doesn't come out until next spring. Will they be banking on some kind of really attractive first party built-in functionality? If so, what is it? The only thing that makes sense for me without

If it's really open, you'll be able to take out the ads. Not that such behavior is desirable from their PoV of course, but if a user can't do it, then the process will have to be hopelessly crippled and closed at some point. So we'll see about this "open source."

I myself have gotten rid of cable TV and am looking for a good solution to download movies and TV, so that I can, um, watch TV on my TV.

I was going to use my Xbox to stream video from my PC, but with the limited format availability, it looks like I'm going to be assembling a media center PC from old parts. Plus that is a cheaper option than purchasing a wireless adapter for my Xbox.

Per the other story today, it depends on your statistics. For example, I see an advertisement 100% of the time I watch tv currently. It would be hard to increase that stat. But, of course, I could see more than the 2 or 3 ads I currently see in any given second, or they could be more intrusive, etc.

Google has lots of competetion in every area they're in, including search. When you're selling $5,000 Caddilacs and everybody else is selling $50,000 Pintos, you deserve your sales. They didn't get where they are by selling crappy products using underhanded tactics like Microsoft did, they did it with a quality product.

90% or more of internet video (99.999% if you count porn) would be unusable without Adobe on board. The entire point of the project is to combine internet and television content into the same package. Without Adobe, Google TV is little more than a glorified DVR.

90% or more of internet video (99.999% if you count porn) would be unusable without Adobe on board.

Most Flash video is H.264, and plenty of devices support H.264. Only the front end would have to change from Flash to HTML5, and possibly a remux if it was in an FLV container. Or are you talking about the legacy On2 codec (which is free now thanks to Google) or the legacy Sorenson H.263 codec?